limited to his Person but derivable to the Governors of the Church even to the consummation of the World One thing I shall add more which tends much to Peters Glory which is that in St. Austin's Judgment none of the Apostles represented the Church but he De Agon Christi Non sine causâ inter omnes Apostolos hujus Ecclesiae Catholicae personam sustinet Petrus c. And in Serm. 49. in Evang. Johan Dicit Petro in quo uno format Ecclesiam c. And in Serm. 13. Evang. Matt. In illo ergo uno Apostolo id est Petro in ordine Apostolorum primo precipuo in quo figurabatur Eccclesia He then only of all the Apostles representing the Church was entrusted not only with the Keys of Heaven but with the Keys of the Church as St. Austin affirms Serm. 124. de temp Credendae erant Petro Claves Ecclesiae imo creditae sunt ei Claves Regni Coelorum He then may be said to have receiv'd them in their largest latitude and extent and in their Independent Jurisdiction as Head of the Church and of the Apostolick Quire the Rest receiv'd them in a lower narrower acceptation as Members of that Society He receiv'd them immediately 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From our Lord himself from our Lords own Mouth as Chrysostom affirms They receiv'd them by a Proxy or participatively either by him or as Photius thinks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Person of their Prince 'T is most certain he first receiv'd them and as Tertull. de pudic affirms he first made use of them Primus in Christi baptismo reseravit aditum Coelestis Regni Optatus con Parm. says The Keys were given to him only to preserve Unity Stant tot innocentes peccator accipit Claves ut unitatis negotium formaretur but then he acknowledges they were to be communicated to the Rest but withal grants Peter the preference herein De Schism Lib. 7. Praeferri Apostolis omnibus meruit Claves Regni Coelorum communicandas coeteris solus accepit If you do believe thus much I shall hold no further Dispute with you about the Keys Now tho' I have already said something to your Quotation in St. Matt. 18. 18. I shall here make some addition That the Fathers did not attribute an equality of Power in the Keys to the rest of the Apostles with Peter by vertue of that place is evident by their Expounding it of Fraternal Correption giving by these words to the injur'd party Power of binding and loosing the Offender This is St. Chrysost Sense of this place And St. Hierom likewise In qualibet causâ nos frater loeserit demittendi habemus potestatem And St. Ambrose says Cum concordaveris cum fratre solvisti eum Peter also seems to take it in this meaning for presently upon Christs saying Whatsoever ye bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven He asks him Domine quoties peccabit in me frater dimittam ei Origen comes nearest the point of any and do's clearly decide it in his Notes on St. Matt. where he says that those words Whatsoever ye bind on Earth shall be bound on Heaven were common both to Peter and those that did admonish their Brothers But as for the words Dabo tibi Claves he says they were deliver'd separate apart to him that he might have something peculiar and egregious above the Rest his words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in the same place he do's acknowledge that what was spoken apart to him did far exceed what was spoken in common to the Rest those words do really appear more Authoritative and Extensive than the Power of binding and loosing granted the Rest which contains not the total but partial Acts of the Keys for they besides their including Power of Solution and Alligation are Badges of Dominion This made our Savior when he gave his Apostles the Power of binding and loosing to make no mention of the Keys reserving that Honour for St. Peter As for your Citation out of St. John 20. v. 5. here is likewise no mention of the Keys Christ did by virtue of these words give them all full Jurisdiction and Authority over the Universe In this their Apostolick Commission they were all equal but this was granted them not in reference to one another but in relation to the whole World of which they were all Princes and Heads whereas Dabo tibi Claves was spoken to Peter apart after a particular manner not competent to the other with a particular Blessing sprung from a particular Act of his confessing Christ his Divinity Christ alluding to his Name and declaring to him his Fathers Name and this was done in the presence of the Rest to shew them he design'd him their Head and Prince The next thing I am to remark is your Quotation out of St. Ambrose Claves illas Regni Coelorum in Beato Petro cuncti suscipimus Then you give me a check for saying they receiv'd them à Petro whereas you say it was in Petro. I shall not concern my self in the defence of this Criticism I know there is much to be said for either of the Opinions as you may see in Salmeron some say à some in and some per Petrum as you may see in Tertull. Scorp Nam si adhuc clausum putas esse Coelum memento Claves ejus hic Dominum Petro per eum Ecclesiae reliquisse And accordingly Greg. Nyss de Cast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He gave to the Bishops the Key of Caelestial Honors per Petrum St. Ambrose Lib. Sacerd. dign says Cum Petro cum illo suscipimus omnes but I shall wave these niceties and come to your Quotation Claves illas Regni Coelorum in B. Petro cuncti suscipimus And here you left out a very material word Sacerdotes The Fathers did not mean by this saying a Minister of a Separate Reform'd Church but a Priest of the Catholick Church and the word Priest doth imply both Altar and Sacrifice Having thus gloss'd upon the words I grant them to be true The Master of the Sentences acknowledges every Priest to receive the Keys with his Sacerdotal Order Lib. 4. Distinct 19. Cum enim recipit ordinem Sacerdotalem simul has Claves recipit Now tho' every Parish Priest has the Keys as really and as truly as a Bishop or Primate yet he has them not in so ample and full a manner as they have but in a Circumscrib'd limited Sense he having no power to use them but on such as are in subjection to him which are fewer in number than they who are under a Bishop But upon examining this Author out of whom you have quoted so much I find him to ascribe the Power of the Keys only to the true Church Jus ligandi atque solvendi solis permissum est Sacerdotibus recte ergo Ecclesia hoc sibi vindicat quae veros habet Sacerdotes Haeresis vindicare non potest quae veros non habet Sacerdotes
advance it to its deserved heighth for you are to understand that tho' Peters Confession did exceed that of others by declaring Christ to be Gods Natural Son yet this was not the sole reason of his Preferment and Honor but because the Father singled him out of the Apostolick Society illuminating him with a particular Revelation and inspiring him what he should return in answer to Christ his Question or if you please God himself spoke by him making use of his Organs You will find by the following Quotations that the Fathers assert both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was declared Blessed because he spake the Sense of God because he receiv'd what he spake from the Divine Grace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Ancor As the Prince of the Apostles witnesseth who by our Lord was vouchsafed to be proclaimed Blessed because the Father discovered the Revelation to him Origen affirms in his Notes on St. Matthew that St. Peter knowing the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Revelation of the Father had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The highest Blessing And accordingly St. Austin Psalm 138. Jamdudum quia dixerat tu es Christus filius Dei vivi auvit non tibi revelavit Caro Sanguis sed Pater meus qui est in Caelis ideo Petra ideo Beatus Thus you may easily perceive that the sourse of Peters Glory was originated from God who became his Tutor and taught him this Divine and Mystical Theology 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Damascene calls it And accordingly St. Ambrose Incar Dom. Sacram. says Qui veram generationem loquitur Patris a Patre assumpsit Peter spake it but God suggested it as Damascen affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Doctrin God declar'd to him and he taught it the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Ancor For Christ did not ask the Question as if he were ignorant but as willing to manifest that this was the Doctrin of the Father which did proclaim his true Son to the Church That Peter should be enforc'd to speak and declare what he was taught by the Father He being thus endoctrinated from Heaven promulges this Article of belief and imparts it faithfully to the rest as Epiph. in Ancor observes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he makes a true discovery of Christ who had shaded himself and was pleas'd to pass Incognito under the Title of Son of Man but Peter by a luminous illapse and ray from above finds him out and Proclaims him the Son of God St. Hierom affirms That he had this Revelation from the Holy Ghost but this his Opinion can raise no difference for Opera Sanctissimae Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa his words are these Quod Caro Sanguis revelare non potuit Spiritûs Sancti gratiâ revelatum est And again in another place Ex confessione Petrus sortitur vocabulum quod Revelationem ex Spiritu Sancto habeat cujus filius appellandus alluding to Barjona for in the Hebrew Language Jona signifies Columba the Symbol of the Holy Spirit descending in that shape Hence we may see what a high Favorite this grand Apostle was of every Person of the Blessed Trinity The Father and the Holy Ghost cull him out of the whole Body of the Apostles and honor him particularly with a Revelation Christ superadds to this Dignity making him a promise of building his Church on him and of the Donation of the Keys and after this constituting him his Supreme Vicar Pastor and Head of his Vniversal Church as shall hereafter be manifested Now after all this you are pleas'd to pass a slight Complement on St. Peter allowing him to be a forward speaker and therefore styl'd by the Fathers Os Apostolorum and if he were their Mouth you say he surely spoke their Mind To return a fit answer to this I shall first examine in what Sense he may be term'd the Mouth of the Apostles And then I shall enquire whether or no the other Apostles had the same Sense of Christ's Divinity as he had when he offer'd to solve the propos'd Question First I must acknowledge that I cannot find in any place of the Scripture that the Apostles ever chose or pitch'd upon Peter for their Speaker but spake themselves to Christ when they had a mind to it or saw occasion this I shall prove by several Instances as Matt. 13. Accesserunt ad eum Discipuli dicentes edissere nobis hanc parabolam Matt. 14. Accesserunt ad eum Discipuli ejus dicentes desertus est locus Matt. 15. Dicunt ei Discipuli ejus unde ergo nobis in deserto panes Matt. 17. Tunc accesserunt Discipuli ad Jesum secreto dicentes c. And John 14. dicit ei Thomas and in the same Chapter Dicit ei Philippus and John 12. Dixit ei Judas Iscariotes and as Nazianzen observes in his 26th Oration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter asks Christ one Question Philip another Judas this Thomas something else and indeed any other of them did the same By this it clearly appears that they all spoke to our Savior as well as Peter Nay in St. John 13. Peter gets John to speak for him beckoning on him to ask Christ a Question Besides they did not only in their Addresses to Christ speak for themselves but likewise answer'd for themselves when Christ propos'd any Question which they could solve Thus in Matt. 13. 51. Christ asked them if they understood all these things they said to him Yes Lord. Christ asked them How many Loaves they had they answered Seven He asked them Matt. 21. 31. Which of the two Brothers did his Fathers Will they said The first He asked them Whether they wanted any thing when he sent them without Purse Scrip or Shoes they said Nothing And in John 21. he asked them Whether they had any thing to eat they answered him No. These easie Questions you see they all answer'd as well as Peter but when Christ propos'd this difficult Question which we now treat of all the rest were silent and Peter only answer'd it 'T is very observable that tho' it was propos'd to them all in the Plural Number Peter only reply'd to it and in this all the Evangelists as many as mention it agree exactly as you may see in Matt. 16. Mark 8. and Luke 9. whereas in their raccounting other Passages they seem to vary Now 't is easily discernible when Peter speaks for the Rest uttering their common Sentiment by his speaking in the Plural Number as in St. John 6. upon our Saviors asking them Nunquid vos vultis abire Peter answers in the Plural Number in the name of all of them Domine ad quem ibimus Here Theophyl observes that he spake for all of them his Reason was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For he did not say to whom shall I go but to whem shall we go And accordingly St. Austin in his 28th Tract Johan Respondit Petrus
Orbem quietum And I hope you will join with me herein not formally as when you pray for him in your Church marring your Prayer with some oblique Reflection but ex Pectore Heartily wishing him all those Benedictions which he may desire as Homo and as Caesar Which God grant him Morever I would desire you to leave off injuring your Prince in railing against his Religion in your Sermons falsly representing it to your cheated Auditory impressing them with wrong Ideas of it and thereby alienating the Affections of his Majesties Liege Subjects which is a Crime of the greatest magnitude and of most dangerous Consequences yet this freedom is taken by several who fancy they may wreak and evaporate that Passion which they dare not on his Sacred Person safely against his Religion thus slily discharging their rancour against a most incomparable Prince to whom they can ascribe no other fault but what really in it self is Glorious and deserving Acclamations namely His returning to the bosom of the Catholick Church which Action of his being render'd more noble by the violent Oppositions and Contrasts of his Enemies will maugre their spight purchase to him surpassing Glory in this World and Immortal Beatitude in that to come He who like a Generous Eagle slighting the Artillery of the Sky darting through the midst of the storm where the flashes are most astonishing and the claps most loud with an undaunted Spirit triumphantly resisted and brake through the tumultuous Rage of popular fury and stemm'd the torrent of its impetuous stream contemning those many Crowns that did attend him for his Conscience sake He has not only now his Victorious Temples adorn'd by the Justice of Heaven with a Diadem more bright than that of his Predecessors being thereby made CONTEMPTAE DOMINVS SPLENDIDIOR REI But has an innumerable quantity of Celestial Crowns beset with Stars reserv'd for him in the rich Treasury of Heaven as a suitable reward for his hazarding his Temporal ones for the sake of his GOD AND RELIGION For Thee GREAT PRINCE Praise has no proper Encomium nor COMMENDATION a fit Panegyrick nor this World an adequate Recompence nor thy Kingdoms a suitable Sacrifice but that of the Hearts of thy Subjects Too happy would this Nation be had it understanding enough to apprehend its own Good having a Prince who would not only protect them here on Earth but serve as a Pilot to conduct them to Heaven CHAP. III. Of the Keys In what Sense St. Peter may be said to answer for the Rest That what Christ reply'd was directed immediately to Peter only In what Sense 't was extendible to the Rest How the other Apostles may be said to share in the Keys An Account of the Fathers who acknowledge St. Peter Paramount in the Keys The Exposition of St. Matt. 18. v. 18. and of St. John 20. v. 21. How the Church receiv'd the Keys in St. Austin 's Sense Whether a Minister of the Protestant Church has the Power of the Keys With Advice to him IT may now seem high time to finish my intermitted Discourse concerning the Keys answering you likewise in that Point But upon perusing your Papers I find you write but little on this Subject but only offer me a rude indigested Lump of Quotations without any Method which in lieu of becoming a Clue to conduct me were a Skain of snarled Thred to perplex and involve me which made me more curious in prying into the intricacies of this matter and of acquiring satisfaction herein which I thought could not be obtain'd without reducing your Quotations into some form and then by solving them Your chief drift in them was I perceive First to prove that Peter answered for the rest of the Apostles and thence to infer that what was said by our Savior to him was spoken to the Rest By this Method you would evince the Rest to be equally concern'd with him in the donation of the Keys This in short is the Web of your Design which I shall here endeavour to unravel This kind of Argumenting I find Dr. Whitaker to make use of long before you Petrus Discipulorum omnium nomine respondit Tu es Christus c. Ergo omnium nomine audivit Tibi dabo Claves but the cunning of this reasoning will be easily detected when it is examined upon what account he may be said to answer for the Rest Dr. Whitaker says it was because they had the same Faith and he only spake for them his words are these Non in suâ tantum personâ illam confessionem edidit Petrus fuit enim communis illa fides atque confessio Petri unius ore edita But this his Opinion can never be prov'd the Revelation of the true Faith being made to him only as I have already manifested As for the Fathers who affirm that Peter answered for the Rest Salmeron says of them thus Recte intelligendi Orthodoxè interpretandi And this is good Advice for they in saying so take the Twelve as a Society and Peter as their chief and in this Sense he may be said to speak for them But then he did not speak as their Praeco but as their Princeps he spake not their Sense but what God the Father had reveal'd and suggested to him he answered what they could not answer but they by their silence approving his Confession upon his first promulging it are said to answer by his Mouth tho' properly speaking Petrus solus respondit caeteri assentiuntur Now they being Members of that Community of which he was Supreme the words may be said in an inferior Sense to be spoken to the Rest which were originally spoken to him But now if they had the same Faith as he had our Saviors rejoinder had seem'd more proper thus Beati estis quia Pater meus revelavit vobis vos estis Petrae c. But you see Christ addresses his Reply to Peter only the words Tu and Tibi shutting out all partnership And this is St. Austin's Opinion of it Serm. 5. In Festo Petri Pauli where speaking of Peter he says thus Solus inter Apostolos meruit audire Amen dico tibi quia tu es Petrus c. And herein Spalato is very honest Certè verba Christi adeo sunt arctata voculis individuantibus ad unum Petrum directa ut nefas sit ea a Petri personâ divellere directè ad alios dirigere certissimum est Christum cum Petro directè proximè loqui Now if Persons would be ingenuous it is easily discern'd when Christ grants a thing peculiar to Peter and when he grants a thing in common to them all what he designs the other Apostles should equally share in with him he evidently expresses in the Plural Number Hoc facite in mei commemorationem this related to the Sacrifice and concern'd them all jointly as Priests What appertain'd to Preaching and Baptizing was deliver'd in common to them all Euntes docete omnes Gentes Baptizantes
c. And likewise what belongs to Remission of Sins Accipite Spiritum Sanctum quorum peccata rimiseritis remittuntur What he gives Peter apart and peculiar is in like manner evidently manifested by Christs speaking to him in the Singular Number Tu es Petrus Dabo tibi Claves Confirma Fratres Pasce Oves meas As for your Quotation out of St. Ambrose Quod Petro dicitur caeteris dicitur 'T is granted to be true in one Sense and I acknowledge that the Fathers have Sayings to this effect as Origen Dabo tibi Claves caeteris quoque commune and others might be mention'd which Catholick Writers do not deny as you may see by Salmeron Vere dicunt Patres verba illa dicta etiam aliis non quod ad alios immediate dicta sint sed quod ita Petro dicta sunt ut non sibi soli dicta They grant the other Apostles to partake herein but not eodum gradu Your Authors affirm that they did equally share with Peter and that he had nothing egregious and singular as Dr. Whitaker affirms Nos non aliter quam caeteri nullo modo concredimus accepisse nihil proprium aut singulare tributum But I shall return to your Quotation out of St. Ambrose granting it true derivatively or in a subordinate inferior acceptation this hinders not but that these words were primordially deliver'd to Peter alone tho' in a proportionate Sense they be extendible to the Rest as Members of the Apostolick College and compriz'd in him their Head Now if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Purple must be judg'd of by Purple I shall by confronting St. Austin with St. Ambrose authenticate this my Explication St. Austin Quaest 75. Vet. Novi Testam on Ego rogavi pro te says thus Pro Petro rogabat pro Jacobo pro Johanne non rogabat Vt caeteros taceam manifestum est in Petro omnes contineri rogans enim pro Petro pro omnibus rogasse dignoscitur Semper enim in Praeposito populus aut corripitur aut laudatur Here they be said to be included in Peter as their Governor And in the same Book Salvator cum pro se Petro dare jubet pro omnibus exolvisse videtur quia sicut in Salvatore erant omnes causae magisterii ita post Salvatorem in Petro omnes continentur ipsum enim constituit caput eorum Here they are said to be contain'd in him as in their Head But if any one should have as nice and sagacious a Nose as Erasmus and fancy that by the stile he can smell out this Book not to be St. Augustin's I shall give you another Saying out of him to the same effect out of his 124th Tract in Johan Cum enim Petro dicitur sequere me nec dicitur caeteris qui simul aderant profecto eum sicut Magistrum Discipuli sequebantur Here they are included in him as their Master In this Sense it is not improper to say that what Christ said to Peter was spoken to the Rest not but that the words were primarily and immediately directed to him but because in an inferior Sense they are communicable to them all as summ'd up in him Now that the promise of the donation of the Keys was originally made to Peter solely is clearly attested by the Authority of Eulogius Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Savior said neither to John nor to any other of his Disciples I will give unto thee the Keys of Heaven but to Peter only and upon what account they were given him St. Chrysost in Hom. 8. Fest Pascal declares 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He receiv'd the Keys as a recompence of his Orthodox Faith And Photius much to the same Sense in his 35th Epist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He delivered into the Hands of Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven as a reward of his true Confession Now as to the other Apostles having the Keys I shall premise this in Honor to St. Peter First That it cannot be prov'd out of the Scripture that the Keys in express words were given to any but to him and unless you can shew me some place in the New Testament where our Savior says to his Disciples Conjunctim vobis dabo Claves or to any of them Particulatim tibi dabo Claves he has the best Plea and Title to them Now as for your Quotation out of St. Matt. 18. v. 18. and out of St. John 20. 21. to prove that the other Apostles had them I answer That it cannot clearly be inferr'd from either of those places that they had them the word Keys being not so much as mention'd there or if it should be granted that they had them by vertue of those places of Scripture it do's not follow they had them in the same Sense and Amplitude that Peter had And herein I submit to Jansenius whose words are these Quamvis dici potest sicut Patres frequenter dicunt etiam omnibus Apostolis traditas Claves loquendo de Clavibus ut per eas communiter significatur potestas remittendi retinendique peccata sicut ibi nulla Clavium mentio ita non est necesse dicere Claves Petro promissas omnibus traditas secundum eum sensum quo Petro hic promissae non Apostolis ibi aut alibi Claves ita traditae Now if either or both of these places you cite were equivalent to Dabo tibi Claves what Reason will you give why Peter should have both a particular and general promise of them and why he should have two Promises of the same thing whereas one had sufficed But Secondly I add That whatsoever was meant by either of those Texts they being spoken conjointly to the Twelve Peter had certainly as large a share in them as any but having over and above his portion in this joint promise a particular one apart to himself in which the Rest were immediately no sharers it cannot be disprov'd but by vertue of this singular separate Promise made to him personally in the presence of the Rest that he had the Keys either alone or if the Power of the Keys were afterwards given to the Rest that he was Supreme in it he having besides the Power of Binding and Loosing which is an effect of the Keys The Keys themselves which are a Badge and Symbol of that Power He then Originally receiv'd them as they are Ensigns of Supreme Ecclesiastick Power Oeconomy and Stewardship in Christ's House which is the Church and was thereby constituted his Steward and set over all his Family But notwithstanding all this I shall not here go about to appropriate the Power and Use of the Keys only to him limiting them to his sole peculiar enclosure but shall grant you that they had the use of them for Peter did not receive them so as to retain them solely to himself but to communicate them to the other Apostles and following Pastors as Thomas contra Gentes affirms Non sic intelligitur Petro Claves Regni commississe ut ipse
solus haberet sed per eum derivarentur ad alios And accordingly St. Leo Transivit quidem in alios Apostolos vis potestatis hujus ad omnes Ecclesiae Principes decreti hujus constitutio commeavit Having yielded you thus much I shall here only maintain the Inequality Inferiority and subordination of this Power in the other Apostles to an higher sublimer and compleater degree of it in Peter They then may be said to have receiv'd the Keys Secondarily Derivatively Participatively by their Associating Adhering and Communicating with him their Head and Prince to whom after a particularizing manner they were originally given to indigitate his Plenitude and Sovereignty in them Origen who asks the Question An soli Petro dantur a Christo Claves acknowledges Peter more excelling in the Power of the Keys than the other Apostles And in his 6th Tract on St. Matt. he says That there was a great difference betwixt that which was said to Peter and what spoken to the Rest Frst He confesses him to have receiv'd the Keys not as the other Apostles did but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only of one Heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of many Then he says That that which Peter bound and loosed was ratify'd not in one Heaven only but in all the Heavens But says he What the other Apostles did bind and loose is confirm'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not in the Heavens as what Peter did but in Heaven their Power not extending so far as Peters did so as to bind and loose in all the Heavens concluding him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Melior ligator and he most happy who is loosed by him It is most evident from hence that Origen did believe Peter to be more eminent and to surmount the rest in the Power of the Keys tho' Maldonate thinks he did injure this his true and solid Opinion by a too subtle way of proving it by making use of Heaven and Heaven's Hilarius who calls the other Apostles Janitores Caeli acknowledging them to have the Keys calls Peter by way of transcendency O Beatus Caeli Janitor He likewise affirms him advanc'd above the Rest Quia solus respondet caeteris Apostolis silentibus supereminentem fidei suae confessione locum promeruit And 't is observable out of him that whereas he affirms the other Apostles to have receiv'd the Keys ob fidei suae meritum he asserts in his Comments on Matt. 13. Petrum fide caeteros anteisse Thus he having a greater portion of Faith consequently had a larger Power in the Keys that being the reason why he recev'd them As for St. Ambrose I find him to attribue the Keys to Peter as a Character to distinguish him from the Rest confessing him to excel them therein in his Serm. 66. Cum omnes Apostoli parem gratiam apud Dominum sanctitatis obtineant nescio quo facto Petrus Paulus videntur prae caeteris peculiari quadam in Salvatore fidei virtute praecellere quod quidem ex ipsius Domini judicio possumus approbare nam Petro sicut bono dispensatori Clavem Regni Caelestis dedit Here he confesses them to be all equal in Sanctity but differenc'd in the Keys In his Lib. 10. Cap. 22. Lucae he says Tollit ergo Petrus aurem quare Petrus quia ipse est qui accepit Claves Regni Caelorum Here he asks a Question why Peter of all the Twelve cut off Malchas's Ear because says he it was he who receiv'd the Keys now had he thought the other equal in the Keys with him this had been no Reason In the 24th Chap. of the same Book he says much to the same effect where speaking of Peter Constanter qui posterior venerat primus ingreditur quasi qui Claves Regni Coelorum ut aliis aperiret acceperat In his Lib. 8. Cap. 9. Lucae he mentions the Keys as his peculiar Characteristical Note and Badge Petrus ascendit qui Claves Regni Caelorum accepit Johannes cui committitur Mater Domini Jacobus qui primus Sacerdotale solium ascendit Cyril Catech. 6. makes it Peters Glory to have the Keys as it was St. Paul's to be snatch'd up to the Third Heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Chrysost in his 21 Hom. Corinth acknowledge him principally entrusted with them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For it was not such a wonderful thing to shew the other Apostles doing this as to demonstrate their Prince who was entrusted with the Keys doing it St. Basil acknowledges him Supereminent hererein De Judicio Dei where speaking of him he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that was prefer'd before all the rest of the Disciples who only obtain'd a more noble Testimony and proclaim'd Blessed who was entrusted with the Keys of the Kingdom St. Cyprian in his Epist to Jubain do's either acknowledge him to have receiv'd them solely or eminently above the Rest Ecclesia quae una est super unum qui Claves ejus accepit voce Domini fundata Bede Hom. in Matt. 16. confesses he exceeded them in the Keys as he did in love Qui Regnum Caelorum majori dilectione prae caeteris confessus est merito prae caeteris collatis Regni Caelestis Clavibus donatus est As for St. Austin I do acknowledge that he affirms the Keys to be given to the Church when they were given to St. Peter and this is by Protestant Writers alledg'd as highly injurious to his Supremacy tho' I cannot see wherein 't is prejudicial to him or defringes the least Ray of Claritude from his Glory but rather guilds it with more radiant lustre if rightly understood For if you consult his Writings you will find that the reason which mov'd him to affirm this was because Peter represented the Church now in what quality he represented it he discovers himself in his Tract ult in Johan Cujus Ecclesiae Petrus Apostlus propter Apostolatûs sui primatum gerebat figurata generalitate personam And in Psal 108. Cujus Ecclesiae ille agnoscitur gessisse personam propter primatum quem in Discipulis habuit And in Serm. 23. de verbis Domini B. Petrus figuram Ecclesiae portans Apostolatûs Principatum tenens Here he declares his Representation of the Church to be by vertue of his Principacy and Principacy So he may be said to represent it not in a Parabolical Sense as its Substitute or Vicar but Historically and Really as its Governor and Primate and consequently he receiv'd the Keys as one that had right and relation a parte rei not as an Atturney who takes possession for another but as a Prince receives the Keys of a City for himself tho' for the benefit of his Nation He receiv'd them immediately The Church by him as Tertul. affirms in Scorp Memento Claves Coeli hic Dominum Petro per eum Ecclesiae reliquisse Dr. Stapleton says That Peter receiv'd them formalitèr for himself but finalitèr for the benefit of the Church for the Power of the Keys was not
Petrum primum Dei confessorem Ecclesiae fundamentum The next you cite is Theophyl Haec confessio quam confessus es fundamentum erit credentium but that he did not except Peters Person is manifest for speaking of Christ rewarding his Confession he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Lord recompenseth Peter giving him a great reward promising him the Church should be built on him And on Luke 22. he introduces our Savior calling him The next Rock of the Church after himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I find you to cite no more Authors on this Subject so I shall take my leave of your Papers for some short time and make an Excursion to other Writers who quote more of the Fathers on this Point This Digression I hope will be pardonable in me whose design in writing is not only for your confutation but for the investigation of Truth and my own satisfaction I find St. Chrysostom to be much contended for and insisted on by your chiefest Champions as a great Assertor that the Church was built on Peter's Faith and not on his Person insomuch that Dr. Whitaker having cited a Saying out of him countenancing this Opinion drolls upon Card. Bellarmine saying Ecquid tibi Jesuita Chrysostomus arrisit But it is withal to be observ'd that altho' in his 55th Hom. on St. Matth. he makes Confession or Faith to be the Rock yet he do's not seclude Peters Person but attributes as great things to it as to his Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ raises Peters thoughts higher making him a Shepherd Here he acknowledges his Pastoral Power then he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He committed into the Hands of a mortal Man the Power of all things in Heaven After this he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God set Jeremy over one Nation but Peter over all the World Here he confesses his universal Jurisdiction As for his saying in his Serm. de Rentecost That Christ did not build his Church upon a Man but upon Faith I conceive he means there upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a bare naked Man for we grant that Christ did not build his Church simpliciter super personam Petri ut Hominis nudi sed fide solidâ Christum confitentis as on one irradiated by the illapse of a Celestial Beam darted from God the Father as on one strengthned by the Mission and Power of the Holy Ghost as on one for the Indeficiency of whose Faith Christ compos'd a particular Prayer or to use St. Chrysostom's own words to explain his meaning as on one who was rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Immoveable unshaken invariable fix'd firm rooted in Faith harden'd and stronger than a Rock in Faith This Explication must be admitted or else you must accuse him of the greatest incogitancies and contradictions imaginable opposing Chrysostom to Chrysostom I shall now insert as many Sayings of his to Broad-seal and Authenticate what I have here asserted as I have observ'd in perusing his Works manifestly to evince that tho' he interpreted Faith to be the Rock yet he did thereby not intend any injury to Peters Person In his Hom. ad eos qui scandalizati sunt He calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Prince of the Apostles the Foundation of the Church the chief of the Society of the Disciples On the 50th Psalm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter the Pillar of the Church the Foundation of Faith the Head of the Apostolick Quire Hom. 4 de verbis Isaiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter the Foundation of the Church the desperate lover of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter the chief of the Apostles the Mouth of the Disciples the Pillar of the Church the Firmitude of Faith the Foundation of Confession the Oecomenical Fisherman In his 9th Hom. de Paenit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When I say Petrus I mean a solid Petra an unmoveable Foundation the Great Apostle the chief of the Disciples Hom. Petri Eliae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Peter the top of the Apostles that immoveable Foundation that solid Rock that Prince of the Church In Psalm 50. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hear what he says to Peter the Pillar the Foundation who therefore was called Peter because he was petrified in Faith Hom. in Petrum Paulum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hail Peter the Rock of the Faith the Foundation of Orthodoxy De abnegat Petri. he introduces St. Peter apologizing for himself to Christ Did not I first promulge you crying out Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God wherefore you accepting of my Testimony did declare me Blessed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and didst entitle me the Rock of the Church saying unto me Thou are Peter c. Hom. 28. de Paenit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter having said Thou art the Son of the Highest God had this Answer Thou art Peter c. Thus Peter said therefore he was made the Foundation of the Church By these Testimonies it evidently appears what great respect and what signal Honor he ascrib'd to Peters Person calling him not only the Pillar and Foundation of the Church but the Prince of the Apostles And if in some part of his Works out of reverence to his noble Confession he affirms the Church to be built on it and in one Sense it may be said so yet he robs not his Person of this Honor but attributes as much to that as to his Confession I may add more for if he affirms his Confession or Faith to be this Foundation advancing that to so high an eminence he exalts his Person to an higher Battlement and Altitude in making him the Foundation of this Faith by his calling him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Foundation and Firmitude of Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Foundation of Confession 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Foundation and Basis of Orthodoxy I have expatiated my self at large upon this Great Father not only to inform my self of his true and genuine Sense in this Point but also to unveil those Imposturous Gulleries which several misguiding Writers obtrude on their easie Readers under the Umbrage of this eminent Author by depraving his Sense and contorting his meaning which my self have been too sensible of being before I had read him often impos'd on by their plausible Quotations out of him The next Author I shall discuss will be Epiphanius who in his 39th Haeres says thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vpon this Rock of firm Faith I will build my Church Now that he by this Saying do's not exclude Peters Person is evident by his other Sayings as first in his Ancorat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For it did become the Prince of the Apostles that Solid Rock on which the Church of God was built c. And Adversus Catharos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The holy Peter the highest top of the Apostles who became to us indeed a firm Rock founding the Faith of our Lord. And in the
same place he calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The firm Rock of the building the Foundation of the House of God In his Ancorat he says thus of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who was assisted by the Father in laying a firm Foundation of Faith And in the same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In all respects Faith was establish'd and confirm'd in him St. Cyril who in his 4th Book de Trinit says Petra opinor per agnominationem aliud nihil quam inconcussa firma Discipuli fides c. Do's not take his Faith apart from his Person but confesses the Church to be built on him as well as on his Faith Lib. 2. Cap. 3. in Johan In Petro tanquam in Petra Lapide firmissimo Ecclesia aedificata est And in Lib. 2. Cap. 12. in Johan Nec Simon fore nomen sed Petrum dixit vocabulo ipso commodè significans quod in eo tanquam in lapide firmissimo suam esset aedificaturus Ecclesiam And on the First of St. Johan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vpon him he destin'd to build his Church My next employ shall be to consult with St. Ambrose concerning this Point whom I find Lib. de Incarnat Dom. Sacram. Cap. 5. to make Faith the Foundation of the Church his words are these Fides est Ecclesiae fundamentum non enim de carne Petri sed de fide dictum est quia portae mortis ei non praevalebunt sed confessio vincit Infernum These words were so pleasing to Dr. Whitaker that having cited them to Cardinal Bellarmine he triumphantly cries out Audin ' Jesuita Yet notwithstanding this imaginary ovation the words of St. Ambrose are easily answered For first no Catholick do's affirm the Church to be built on Peters Flesh so that he should support it as Caelifer Atlas do's the Heavens by virtue of a strong robust Back and a pair of broad Shoulders neither do we affirm it to be built on his Soul but on his Person consisting of Body and Soul Next I shall prove out of Ambrose that altho ' he calls Faith the Foundation he do's not deny Peters Person to be so likewise as is well known by those celebrated Verses of his which St. Austin quotes wherein he acknowledges Peter to be Petra Ecclesiae And in Lib 4. Lucae Non turbatur ista navis quae Petrum habet turbatur illa quae Judam habet quemadmodum turbari poterat cui praeerat is in quo Ecclesiae firmamentum est Et de Incarn Lib. 4. Hic est Petrus qui respondit pro caeteris imo prae caeteris ideo fundamentum dicitur And Lib. 4. De fide Quem cum Petrum dicit firmamentum Ecclesiae indicavit St. Basil tho' he is pleas'd to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on 2d Isaiae The sublime Soul of blessed Peter is called the Rock because it is firmly rooted in Faith Yet do's he not offer to depose his Person as appears in his 6th Book against Eunomius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter for the excellency of his Faith was entrusted with the Church which was built on him The rest of the Fathers do perspicuously acknowledge the Church to be built on Peters Person St. Hierom. in Cap. 14. Ezechiel Apostolus Petrus super quem Dominus Ecclesiae fundamentum solidavit And on Matt. 16. aedificabo Ecclesiam meam super te And in the same place Petro illam beatitudinem potestatem aedificationem super eum Ecclesiae in futuro promissam St. Cyprian is very positive in affirming the Church to be built on his Person Petrus super quem Ecclesia Domini dignatione fundata De bono patientiae Petrus super quem aedificata a Domino fuerat Ecclesia 52. Epist Petrus cui oves suas Dominus pascendas tuendasque commendat super quem posuit fundavit Ecclesiam De Disciplina Virg. Petro primum Dominus super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam unde unitatis originem instituit c. Epist 70. Baptisma unum Spiritus Sanctus unus una Ecclesia a Christo Domino super Petrum origine unitatis ratione fundata in the same Epistle Tertullian who in his Book de Pudicitia says concerning Peter In ipso Ecclesia extructa is pleas'd to explain himself thus id est per ipsum In the same Book affirms the Church to be built not on Peters Faith but on his Person Manifesta Domini intentio personaliter hoc Petro conferre super te inquit edificabo Ecclesiam meam tho' he denies it to belong to his Successors being when he wrote that Book infected with the Heresie of Montanus And in his Prescriptions Petrus aedificandae Ecclesiae Petra dicitur And again in Monog Petrum solum invenio maritum per socrum Monogamum praesumo per Ecclesiam quae super illum aedificata est CHAP. VI. Concerning the other Apostles being Foundations Of Peters new Name given him by Christ Peter the Rock of the Church Of Origens Interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all one The Inconvenience of Expounding Christ to be the Rock in this place MY following Province will be to treat of the rest of the Apostles whom to lessen and extenuate St. Peters Glory you would equalize with him that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Foundations I concede to you Oecomenius on the Apocalyps gives the reason of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because they laid the first ground-work of Faith in Christ And accordingly St. Hierom in Psalm 86. In illis erant fundamenta ibi primum posita est fides Ecclesiae They in reference to their Apostolick Power had equal Authority of founding Churches in any part of the World In relation to their Doctrin they were equally Orthodox and Infallible And what concern'd their Writings they being directed and influenc'd by the same Spirit they were alike Canonical and what appertain'd to the Government of all other Christians they were equally Pastors Heads and Rectors And in these Considerations the Church may be said to be built ex aequo as St. Hierom says on all of them Now notwithstanding they were all equal Foundations in these Aspects St. Peter was here the only sole Rock on whom Christ promis'd to build his Church which did consist not only of all Christians whatsoever but even of the Apostles themselves If they were Foundations so was St. Peter and the Prophets if they were Foundations they were Sub Petro post Petrum whom our Savior to preserve Unity chose out of the Apostolick Colledge and with his own Hands laid next to himself as Theophyl affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now that Peter was the only Rock of the Universal Church will appear evident if we consider that Christ did here engage himself by promise solely to him to build his Church on him upon his peculiar Confession of his Divinity which the other Apostles till they had learn'd it of him were ignorant of this I have already prov'd Now what our
the Old Testament being Imperfect Carnal Umbratick and Prefigurative of one that was Compleat Sublime and Spiritual Hence St. Chrysost Lib. de Sacerd. comparing the Priests of the Old Testament with those of the New ascribes to them the cure of the Leprosie of the Body but to these the Power to cleanse the filth and impurity of the Soul they bring Fire but these the Holy Ghost And in his Orat. 5. adver Judaeos speaking of the Pontificate of Melchisedeck he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if such a Type were more splendid than the Jewish how much more glorious is the true one Your last Reason for the Jewish Kings Supremacy in Church Affairs is Because by Divine appointment they were Custodes utriusque Tabulae This Argument seems to me very insufficient for such a Proof For tho' the Book of the Law was by Gods Command given to the King it was not that he should expound the Sense of it upon any emergent Controversie but it was given him to govern himself and his Subjects by it That by the frequent reading of it he might learn to fear God and keep his Statutes and that by his Laws and Temporal Sword he should defend the true Religion therein concontain'd As for the Interpretation of the Law that belong'd to the High-Priest according to the inviolable Decree in Malachy 2. Labia Sacerdotis custodient scientiam Legem requirent ex ore ejus They were as Josephus affirms in his Second Book against Appio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judges of Controversies And in Deut. 17. Princes were by Gods institution to take the Copy of it from the High-Priest And in the same Chapter in doubtful Cases the Jews were oblig'd to recurr to him with severe injunctions to acquiesce in his determinations Now whether the Jewish High-Priest were liable to Error as you assert is not worth my present Discussion no Catholick being bound to believe the Popes Infallibility but in Conjunction with a Council But this is clear the Jews were absolutely oblig'd to submit to his determinations under penalty of Death he having written on his Rationali DOCTRINA ET VERITAS By this you may imagin how dangerous it would have been for any one in those days to have affirm'd him Fallible and upon that pretence to have opposed his Definitions You see our Savior put no such fancies into their Heads but paid much respect to Moses's Chair and tho' he knew that those who sat in it were bad Men yet he says Quaecunque vobis dixerint facite And St. Paul stiles the High-Priest tho' a Persecutor of the Christians Princeps Populi CHAP. II. Concerning the Sacerdotal and Regal Head Of Christian Emperors intermedling with Church Matters The Fathers Opinion of it Particular Emperors who are falsly affirm'd by Protestants to Act as Heads of the Church Of our English Kings Of Henry VIII Of this our present King James II. YOur next Discourse is about Christian Princes these you assert to be Heads of the Church and your Reason for this Assertion is this That if a King be Head of his Kingdom he is Head of the Church because that is in his Kingdom This I must acknowledge to be a very strong Argument to prove a Nero Head of the Church because in its Infancy it was in his Dominions But Card. Bellarmin will give you good information herein and acquaint you how Christian Kings are Heads of the Kingdom and how they may be Supreme Praesunt Reges Christiani hominibus non ut Christiani sed ut homines sunt Reges non ut Christiani praesunt sed ut homines politici c. And again Reges habent primum locum inter Christianos ut Christiani sunt homines id est Cives terrenae Civitatis Non ut sunt Cives Sanctorum Domestici Dei Ecclesiae membra Hence you may see that a King may be absolute in his Kingdom and yet not be Head of the Church those two Estates residing in two several Persons as being of distinct and different Natures The ones Dominion extending to Mundan Temporal Corruptible things the Body and Goods of Fortune the other reaching to things Spiritual Eternal Celestial to things appertaining to another World and Salvation of the Soul And 't is necessary to have two such distinct Governors The Civil Power to maintain Peace to protect and secure us in our Temporals The Ecclesiastick to teach us the true Worship of God to feed us with Food that perisheth not to direct us in Spirituals to the attainment of Eternal Bliss These two Kingdoms consisting of things so widely distant one from the other cannot be injurious or prejudicial to one another or any way interfere but by way of abuse but rather assistant to one another being in themselves Friendly and Amicable Hence Samuel having anointed David King kissed him the Kiss being a Symbol of Peace and Amity This was a Signature of the mutual Agreement and Accord betwixt these two Governments they are both Independent so as one might not usurp on the other or hinder the other in the due Execution of their Charge The Prince is absolute in Administration of all Civil Matters in which all Persons in his Dominions are subject and herein the King may be called Homo a Deo secundus solo Deo minor as Tertull. has it ad Scapul or as Chrysost says in Hom. 2. Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the King is Chief and Head of all Men upon Earth The Priest on the other side presides in Church Government in Spiritual Affairs in Resolutions of Controversies in Faith in Explications of Articles of Belief in Interpretation of Scripture c. Thus the Prince is Caput Regale and the Priest is Caput Sacerdotale They are both of Divine Institution The Kingly Power communicated to Princes from Heaven their Charter being deriv'd from God by whom Kings Reign The Priestly Jurisdiction originated from Christ subsisting in its own Nature without Subordination or dependency on the Temporal Power Now to admit and submit to the Sacerdotal Power as Supreme in things meerly and purely Spiritual do's not at all dislustre the Regal Sway nor defringe the least Particle from his Sovereign Jurisdiction the former properly insinuating it self to the secret Closets of Spiritual Recesses where the Scepter of the Temporal Prince has no Dominion Having premis'd thus much concerning the Kingly and Priestly Power I shall make a short Reply unto you about Christian Princes whom you affirm to have govern'd Church Affairs both de facto de jure Now that some of them did intermeddle with Church Affairs is not deny'd several of them being Arians but that they did it de jure will not be yielded you neither could I ever learn how they should come by this Right for 't is evident that Christ committed the Care and Government of the Church and Church Affairs to his Apostles Now if you can produce his Commission for the transferring this Power from their